There is certainly need for some transparency in the debate, however I would ask "what data for what purposes?" The article is not at all clear on that.

However, the need for better identification of those who should not have weapons is still the single most important factor and that requires real mental health care.And those data are medical records and are not public information.

There is education required all around. For example, that article uses a term that is clearly misunderstood by many, 'assault rifle'. It's difficult to have a discussion unless we can communicate accurately and effectively. So, there is much to be done, but it is not all one-sided.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

Specific exceptions allowed for a range of specialist interest guns that cannot be taken off the premises of a registered gun club.

Strong punitive measures for being found carrying an unlicensed gun, eventually broadened to even having one in your house

Gun drop-ins where people can anonymously give a gun over to the police without being charged and in return they are given food vouchers.

And what effect will those have on criminals? None.

Low powered hunting rifles? What are those? The power must be commensurate with the game, otherwise a humane kill cannot be made.

There are already strong, punitive laws for illegal possession of a firearm. The problem is the lack of enforcement.

Quote:It's not that hard. All these measures have proven themselves successful. Any change in culture takes time. The problem with America is there is a strong political lobby in the form of the NRA and corporations have too much influence.

No, the problem is there are already 300,000,000 firearms legally in the hands of civilians. What do you propose be done about that?

Those measures have been proven to work successfully in other countries. As I said, it takes time, many years, decades even, but they will work.

If the problem is bigger then it just takes more time to fix. That is all.

And when I specified a low powered hunting rifle, I meant something commensurate for the job. What do you need to shoot the brains out of a rabbit, raccoon, fox or whatever?

Tax payer's money. That's what it's there for. Sorting it out now will save money in the long run before the problem gets even bigger because it is effectively an arms race.

And if you say that America can't afford it, well it can't afford anything, hence the vastly escalating debt it holds so it might as well use that Monopoly money on something worthwhile which will make for a better society for the current and all future generations.

Or just take it out of the vast military budget. After all, why be ready for waging war in foreign lands which pose no direct threat when there is already a war happening at home?

(02-06-2014 07:36 PM)Chas Wrote: At a conservative estimate of $500 - $1000 per firearm, that comes out to
between $150,000,000,000 and (Edit3,000,000,000,000 $300,000,000,000.
By comparison, the entire U.S. annual budget for 2013 was $2,770,000,000,000.

And, of course, the majority of gun owners would prefer not to lose all of their guns.

It's not like the money has to be found up-front in one go if it is a program happening over many years or even decades.

One of many gun buyback programs happening in America right now. e.g. Los Angeles

"Since its inception in 2009, the program has removed nearly 13,000 guns from LA streets."

If the culture changes and there is less need for having a gun, guns become more expensive to own and they can still go off to a gun club and fire weapons there then I am sure that it will only be a minority of gun owners wanting to keep their guns. It could easily reach a stage where it becomes unfashionable to own a gun, possibly with the next generation.